Lord Mhoram's page

I expect we will get used the new way of doing things pretty quickly. When I ran PF1, I used more 3rd party content (Dreamscarred, Legendary, Spheres of Power, Rogue Genius) than I did actual Paizo stuff.

I saw saw the elegant simplicity reading the rules. We haven't had group play since he start of Covid, so it is just going to be the two of us. I was reading (and watching) a lot of stuff about teamwork in the system to try and figure out how to play an effective solo characters - as the team work to buff and debuff wouldn't really be present in what we play. We have done things like that before. This first game is basically us getting used to the system. The "real" game will the Strength of THousands adventure path.

The wife and I play rpgs a lot with just the two of us (I met her decades ago when she was the Champions GM when I moved in the area). We have played D&D 3rd, PF 1 and others together.

Today we did our first PF 2e (revised) today. Just using the beginner box (for reminders). The biggest things we had to remember was the 3 action system and the critical success/ Success/ Failure / Critical Failure structure.

We only played for an hour and a half, got through some roleplaying (which came easy) and one combat. We use the "Solo Heroes" rules by Kevin Crawford, for Labyrinth Lord, but the concepts work with just about any d20 level based game. I'm running a gestalt Monk/Kineticist.

We loved it. But it will take some time to get comfortable with the changes.

This is an older one. Game is Superhero type. The character in question is a brick (strong/tough) Modeled on Doc Ock, but his extra tentacle arms are telekinesis.

Bad guy monologues and draws a very nasty knife. The brick uses his TK picks up a nearby vehicle and hits the guy. The quip is "He brought a knife to a van fight"

Lord Mhoram wrote:

1) Is this correct?

Pretty much yes.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

2) are any of the non-remaster books being rewritten to the remastered style?

There is nothing on the schedule.

I will note that these non-remastered books are still mostly compatible and completely viable. The conversion needed is generally terminology (such as renaming Spell Level to Spell Rank or applying the Off-Guard condition instead of Flat-Footed).

Yeah, I was mostly concerned with what order to get the stuff.

Yeah I know there is some errata, but mostly it was De-OGLing the game after Wizards Bruhaha. I had forgotten about the Treasure vault, but as I understand it, items didn't have much done to them.

I was primarily looking at rules rather than setting stuff.

I've been reading the Archives for getting to know the new rules. I loved first edition (I used a lot of third party stuff, Dreamscarred, SPheres, Akashic stuff, so I was sorta hesitant to change. I was also playing another D&D offshoot for that kind of game (Level Up). But I love Pathfinder, and the remaster seemed a good time to give 2E a try. It looks great reading it. I tend to like to wait a few years for game to be out, I like lots of options.

Thanks for letting me know I had is sussed.

So I am finally coming back to Pathfinder, and just starting 2E for the first time. I read up on the remasters, so I just want to make sure I have it all straight before I buy the new books.

Game-mastery Guide
Core Rulebook
Advanced Players Guide
Bestiary 1

are being replaced by the GM Core, Player Core 1 & 2, and Monster Core 1.
Rage of the Elements is written to the remastered rules.

The leaves Secrets of Magic, Guns and Gears, Book of the Dead, and Dark Archive as pre Remastered books.

Questions
1) Is this correct?
2) are any of the non-remaster books being rewritten to the remastered style?

As long as the thread has risen from the dead..

With SF 2E being PF2E compatible, I'll probably merge them and run a sort of final fantasy game with lots of fantasy normal stuff, but high tech cities - a blend many FF games pulled off pretty well.

Quote:

Magnuskn provides a great example, because we don't know the reason the power floor of pure casters was dropped its hard for us to brainstorm viable alternatives, we don't know more than a general mission statement.

But the goal of a playtest is not to get the fanbase to brainstorm alternatives.

Its to provide data and feedback on the systems that have been designed.

The design team then uses that data to make decisions/changes.

I agree, and will add that the systems being tested are not necessarily, the ones intended to be in the final game. They said that Resonance was a difficult topic, and hadn't come up with something all the designers like - so they put it in the playtest for testing. They have also said the monsters are really tough - because they want to see where the system breaks. I expect the limited number of class feats and limited choices there are in a similar situation.

I think people were seeing this more as a preview, and less of a playtest. Testing where the designers were checking where things break to be able to adjust the details to have the best game in the end.

Summoner for me.

The cherished "freedom to build whatever character you wanted" of 3.5/PF was actually the freedom to blow up the game by turbo optimizing OR to shoot yourself in the foot by playing a Rogue/Monk/Druid. Even being in the middle ground between these two extremes required advanced system mastery.

Agreed.

I felt (and said) for year that balance and freedom are opposites, when relying on the rules themselves for both. Games like Pathfinder and D&D rely on system for balance, and over the years we have seen so many threads about player/GM entitlement when things are banned.

I also play HERO system, a point based, effects based game. Pretty much any concept you can come up with, you can create(sometimes it's too powerful for the campaign, so you don't get to play exactly that version). However, the HERO GM is expected to say no to characters, ability score levels, particular combinations of powers - the balance, by and large, lies in the GM, not the system.

To me it seems like PF2 is trying to balance things, and as we only see a portion of character options they seem straightjacketed. I'm sure that is part of the playtest point - with these basic options how well can they balance it. Once the systems are analyzed, modified and completed, the basic balance they want will fall into place - and when the actual core book comes out next year, it will have lots of options.

I think it works well both as a mechanical limiter, and as a story mechanic. If you start in that class you have been doing something like that for a long time. When you multiclass, you are picking it up new, so it sort of makes sense you have to have a great natural aptitude for it (high ability score).

So while reading over the rules (and not even done with them) and reading all the previews as they came out - I look at things this way.

The character generation rules as I see them are broken into 2 pieces.

1) - the basic class structure - the "chart" of what you get when.
2) - feats

So right now the list of class feats is somewhat limited - it is a playtest after all.... and I won't comment on that.

But the other piece - There is so much that can be done with that. It opens up to almost unlimited potential. A new area source-book is released - (or a third party campaign world) - rather than designing a new class, you just change (add and subtract) what class feats are available, and it would change the flavor immeasurably. What were the lesser change archetypes in PF1 could just be a new feat tree for a class.

While I enjoy what I am reading every time I turn around I see this HUGE potential to easily change/modify/flavor new ideas for classes and characters. Even with the basic structure - a new Ancestry, Background, and feat tree for a class could make it very very different and new.

More than anything else, that is what is exciting me about PF2.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

When 3rd did that my first thought was "They read amber". In earlier editions it was "memorizing spells" - the idea was teh spell imprinted on your mind, and saying the short keywords and gestures released it upon the world.

I had no idea that was how things worked in Amber. I was only aware of Jack Vance's Dying Earth books, which is roughly the same thing and the original source. Memorization was always how many magical effects you could shove into your brain and unleash later to me, even in AD&D days.

I should go back and read some more of both, though. They are good reads.

Agreed on both good. Yeah Merlin discussed spells and described haing a "loom" that you hung spells on. I always loved the image.

Bringing in quick built rules for NPC and monsters is probably the sole reason I might give GMing in PF again a try, because otherwise preparing custom encounters is just a hassle. I also don't understand the people, who are vehemently against this because I'm sure you would be still able to build your encounters the old way (although I'm not sure why anyone would want to do that).

As for Resonance, I'm actually not opposed to that idea, I just hope the developers add some fitting flavour to go along with it. The precedent is already established to some degree, as 'Use Magic Device' is tied to Charisma.

I agree. And really, the resonance doesn't change the feel of the game... because really, who were incorporating their Belts of Giant Strength into the description of their characters? When did a character in the novels described as wearing 13 magic item, healing with 20 uses of a healing wand? Actually... Hell, novel characters don't even usually buy new swords. In the lore, Harks always have his brother's axe. So yeah, I feel like PF2 will actually help a lot for characters to fit more in the lore of the game. And that's what I like with Pathfinder, the lore. :3

I agree with both of you. I'm personally really excided about PF2.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

I saw one of the best and most interesting depictions of Vancian Magic in the second Amber series. Spells are something you cast ahead of time but you leave out key words and gestures. Those anchors prevent the spell from being cast but do decay over time which is why you need to "re-memorize" spells. And the hero used Vancian spells to bury his opponent first with a pile of roses, and then a pile of cow manure. It was most amusing. ^_^

If you don't like Vancian magic, just play a Sorcerer. ;)

After I read those, that became the default setting explination for prepared spells in my D&D/PF games forever after. I even used "hanging spells" rather than "Preparing spells" when I talked about it.

This is how the system was described in 3E and many of the D&D novels. So it's always been the lore explanation of Vancian system! Don't know any other one myself...

When 3rd did that my first thought was "They read amber". In earlier editions it was "memorizing spells" - the idea was teh spell imprinted on your mind, and saying the short keywords and gestures released it upon the world.

I think we are looking past another major factor when comparing edition changes. This may go a little GNS theory (mostly as descriptors). I state "this is" and "that is" as fact, but it is opinion.

3.x was gamist/sim. The rules in a lot of ways were trying to simulate the world (aside from things like the commoner rail gun). A number of rules were there to reinforce "this is the way the world works, regardless of PC or game". There were very game elements too. But by and large (with ability to adjust for odd rules) you could very much go with "the rules are the physics of the world" and it wasn't too wonky (aside from corner cases). Having PCs, NPCs and Monsters basically build the same way was an aspect of that. AD&D (1st and 2nd) were fairly similar.

4E went full on gamist, and pretty much ignored the Sim aspects. Everything was about balance in combat, daily balance, what was fun (but not real in the game world). 1 monster could be build as a solo, a challenge and a minion - same creature but different rules depending on where the PCs were in their level journey. A difficult door was always PC bonus +10, but that referred to different doors a basic wood door for lower level, and a magically barred portcullis for higher level - but because the DC chart didn't make that distinction clear it was read by many as "same DC for same door". There were states "roles" to fill, which didn't make sense from an in world perspective to many. Personally I think this shift in approach is why a lot of people said "This doesn't feel like D&D" - different assumptions in approach.

5th went back to older approach with "natural language" and how the built the rules.

For 2nd ed pathfinder to succeed, it needs to FEEL like old Pathfinder. There may be a different structure to classes, but if the class feat structure means that when it is played at the table it feels the same, the specifics won't matter as much. The new action economy could feel similar, just different specifics. Hit points and armor class remain.

Two of the complaints I see are that NPCs/Monsters are not built with same system (which I mentioned early) because that breaks the sim view people have "same race, scores but they are built different - they should be the same"; the other being Resonance - I remember someone commenting that "so what changed in the fiction to explain this because old PF didn't do it that way" again - rules support a world approach rather than a game approach.

Personally I think PF2 will feel close enough to D&D/PF1 that it won't be an issue for me. Whether it does for others will decide if it succeeds.

I saw one of the best and most interesting depictions of Vancian Magic in the second Amber series. Spells are something you cast ahead of time but you leave out key words and gestures. Those anchors prevent the spell from being cast but do decay over time which is why you need to "re-memorize" spells. And the hero used Vancian spells to bury his opponent first with a pile of roses, and then a pile of cow manure. It was most amusing. ^_^

If you don't like Vancian magic, just play a Sorcerer. ;)

After I read those, that became the default setting explination for prepared spells in my D&D/PF games forever after. I even used "hanging spells" rather than "Preparing spells" when I talked about it.

Rules:
Level and class based design.
Lots of options - both choices within class and in general.
Vancian (or semi-vancian casting).
Semi-zero to Demigod power curve.
Magic items (not necessairly the big 6)
3PP support.

Setting:
Golarian
APs

Overall:
Great looking books with style and design.
Wayne Reynolds art isn't required, but it helps.

I prefer the landscape idea as well.

Just because they're scantily clad doesn't mean they have to be posed like a Playboy / Playgirl model.

Paging Greg Land.. Paging Greg Land.

Oh you said posed, not traced.

Xenocrat wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Volkard Abendroth wrote:

bookrat wrote:

To me, the culture of C/MD was exemplified the strongest when a new ability was released that allowed a PC to dash in a straight line attacking everyone along that line.

Sounds pretty cool, huh? Except it wasn't an ability any martial class could do, because it was a spell. :/

Said spell was not on the wizard spell list.

It was given exclusively to two 3/4 BAB classes, one of which was heavily focused on martial abilities.

That's not the problem.

The problem is the great martial abilities were gated behind a spell.

Bladed Dash is better Spring Attack with no prerequisites. Greater Bladed Dash is better Springing Whirlwind Attack (which doesn't even exist and would cost more than half a dozen feats if it did) with no prerequisites.

The prerequisites are the spellcasting levels...

That is the whole point.

I think what kyrt-rider is saying is that if the game had a "super run past everone and hurt them" ability, that it should be a martial ability of some sort, not a spell. Not even a martial tending spelluser. Just flat out something that martials with no spellpower can do.

Since this was brought up, no, just because people find shirtless heavily muscled guys sexy does not mean those guys are automatically sexualized. It’s how they are presented.

Makes me think of the cinematography of the Transporter. They purposfully used camera angles, filters and lighting that were normally used for women fighting in movies for Statham. A lot of men found some of those fight scenes uncomfortable because they had been .. accustomed.. to having those cues say "This is sexy" only it was being done with a man in the frame instead of a woman.

I somehow can't agree with having a 'complete game', not with all the design space still left. 3/4 of a complete game, maybe

I meant it as collection as well. And I agree with you. Some of the third party design work (The Spheres of Might and Power, DSP's Psionics, Akashic and Path of Wor Work, New Path Compendium to name a few) show just what kind of thing can be explored in that space.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

This is an example of a character story I would like to see vaible with multiclassing.

Character is a fighter, worships a diety... after a while (and a few levels) trains to be a paladin, and excels as that (for a few levels) and then gets spells as a paladin, and decides to become closer to thier diety and become a cleric.
Great story arc for the character, somewhat untenable without good mutliclassing rules.

Define good multiclassing in this case? I mean, you can absolutely do this.. but your breadth of knowledge results in a reduced depth of knowledge. This is also reflective of the story.

Agreed. This works in 3.x and Pathfinder. It doesn't in 4E D&D, or only with variant multiclassing. I just want to see that same idea in PF2. If the class shifts were from one caster to another, then the utility of the character falls apart (5E does that fairly well). I just want to see it continue to be viable.

This is an example of a character story I would like to see vaible with multiclassing.

Character is a fighter, worships a diety... after a while (and a few levels) trains to be a paladin, and excels as that (for a few levels) and then gets spells as a paladin, and decides to become closer to thier diety and become a cleric.
Great story arc for the character, somewhat untenable without good mutliclassing rules.

As someone who doesn't think of a class as a defining character trait, merely a handy descriptor, and a level as nothing more than a package of skills... yeah, I want really good multiclassing. I loved 3.x multiclassing aside from how it gimped casters. I don't necessarily want it to crush single classing, but I want both to be viable options.

Personally I want to see almost no class abilities, and EVERYTHING be in class feats, so that we can completely customize a character. Have every class ability from every PF1 archtype availble (or it's equivelent) in class feats to mix and match as we like.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

DrDeth wrote:

To me, they seem to be chasing the 5th Ed crowd, "D&D Lite".

All I ask is that they leave a PF1 PRD for those who want to play the old rules.

I'm really looking forward to the new rules (and don't think of them as Lite at all, rather depth without unnecessary complexity).

However I too hope they keep the 1st Edition PRD, as well as finish updating it with the later books which are still not up on the PRD.

Because I plan to play and run both games.

Pretty much where I am at. With the launch of 2E, I will have a complete game in 1E, that will likely see minimum revision in the future. If they can spend the time to post the full set of rules to the PRD, that will be a great boon to future games.

While I am very interested in PF2, I agree with that sentiment. I will get the last few PF1 books (Paizo and 3PP) that I want, and will have a complete Lord Mhoram's PF1 set to play from. I still play 1st ed AD&D sometimes too. It's nice to have the stuff on hand like that.

1. Paizo. It's the company over everything else. They've got a fair use policy, an electronic product policy, and a community mindset that meshes well with the other companies I tend to favor (Posthuman, Evil Hat, MCG).

Everything else comes after that. I've done my tours with more systems than I care to count, as well as my share of time with great games from outright terrible companies. I don't want any more time with terrible companies.

Agreed. One of the things that brought me on board of D&D 3.0 was the OGL. WotC always seemed reluctant about it - I love the Paizo embraced it, metnioning 3PP on their store blogs, and in some cases referring people to their products because Paizo wasn't going to do anything in that vaid (DSP psionics).

I'm going to be a bit more extensive on my preference and Pathfinder. I started playing D&D in 77. With the Holmes basic, and when the Advanced D&D came out, natural assumed it was the same game. Whups. I was 10. I played D&D and Gamma world, and I was aware of other TSR games, and that was about it.

In '85, I went to university, and discovered a whole host of gaming options. It was shortly after this that 2nd AD&D came out, and I really didn't like it (removed some elements I really liked, and kept elements I really didn't). My game of choice became Champions - I love the superhero genre, and it allowed me to play any character I ever wanted to. More work, but the results were worth it.

I tinkered around with other systems as a secondary system to HERO off an one for quite a while, but never found one I really liked until D&D 3.0 came out. I loved the freedome of multiclassing, and prestige classes, and such. That became the secondary system of choice, and for years I only played HERO and D&D3.x.

4th came out. Didn't like it. Left D&D for a few years, and came back later with Pathfinder. Again tinkered with other systems for a different feel (WOIN, Fantasy Age, Savage Worlds) - never found one that was what I wanted. Until last year when FFG releaased Genesys.
PF2 announced and I was feeling "I have genensys what do I need PF for" Then reading the previews I was excited.

I play HERO as it fits my playstyle perfectly, and is still my primary game. It still takes a lot of work, so it isn't suited to solo play between me and my wife.

I play Genesys, as it is a wide open system with lots of options, and the dice are narrtive (even if the system isn't exactly). Lots of freedom, and very uncomplex. My "light" system.

But D&D is my first gaming love, and I still like to play variations of that system. As HERO is build a character from powers, and Genesys is all in the dice roll, I like a system that is more limited, but still allows much freedom, and to be honest I actually like "pick an ability from this list" in character creation - the list needs to be large enough for me to get what I want - but the structure of a leveled system with that approach is very appealing to me. I looked at 5E D&D for my "old love" fix, but found it too simple for me - I like more complex systems, and it just wasn't, fo Pathfinder is much better for that for me.

So three games with three very different approaches and feel, each for it's own niche.

This is poor design, unless the plan is for this feat to suck, which is possible.

I don't expect it to suck, but to be balanced against other options, so that while it is A choice, it isn't THE choice.

Here is my problem with this thread and your approach (which is not exclusive to you btw): You are already comparing mathematical models and making big statements about what needs to be done or needs to be retained, while only having a tiny fraction of the puzzle in front of you.

By anology: someone saw a preview of Starfinder weapons, see the scaling damage and applied it to pathfinder and "a fighter gets 4 attacks with 18d6 damage, that's broken" - becuase they didn't realize that the underlying math and structure between SF and PF were vastly different.

I see the blogs and such as a quick glipse "hey look at the cool thing" then "Hey look at this other cool thing" we won't see how it all works until August, but the glimpses are cool.

My experience with Rolemaster was in a LotR game where the GM wouldn't let us influence the story in any way because the canon heroes from the novels had to be the ones who accomplished anything of note. That was "fun" :\

To continue the thread drift...

I ran a LotR game set during the war. The PCs were a group of unusual characters - a Dwarf that saw Durin's Bain, a reformed Black Numbenorian and similar. I ran a plot about a huge threat coming after Aragorn in the form of single nasty creature. The adventures happened on the fringes of the war, but if they didn't stop the BBEG, Aragorn would be killed. They were at the coronation, and in the end of the campaign King Elessar came over and bascially said "you have no fanfare, you are not recognized, but know that I am aware of your valiant deeds.. blah blah, and I owe a debt to you all"

The Players wanted to run a "set in the war" campaign with the core story being unchanged, so I pulled a "Back to the Future 2" on them. It was recieved well. One of my best campaigns.

So yeah, with not having played it much recently, and the fact it is the ruleset/mechanics that I like, 2E is something I will enjoy reading about, and look at from a "this is a cool piece of game design" - I'll likely never play it - as they are changing the specific thing I came to Pathfinder for.

Time to eat crow. lol.

Based on all the info we are getting, between resonance, class structure, and the flexibility of everything we have seen, I am more excited about PS2 than I was about PF1.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

That happened to me in rolemaster once ( a super swingy system). We got to the BBEG and I open ended twice on the attack roll, then rolled perfectly on a crit, and killed the beasty in 1 round. The GM looked shocked.

Speaking of Rolemaster, randomness, and shocking results... my very first game of Rolemaster was back in high school with some of my more adult friends, and I was playing some kind of lizardman fighter-type.

Everyone told me that combat was nasty, so I followed their lead in trying to avoid it until, one time, it was just absolutely necessary. Played a couple of hours before needing to roll an attack.

My very first attack, with my very first character, I attempted to bite an orc who was grappling me. I rolled open-ended low, and then I rolled open-ended low again. And again; jaws dropped. And then I borrowed someone else's dice, cajoled them, pleaded with them for good luck... and rolled open-ended low again.

Bit my own f&#*ing head clean off.

I eventually became a very great fan of Rolemaster but it was not that night.

:)

And you walked instead of talking to him about it, at least according to your story.

We asked him why, he said "That is the way I want it, I'm the DM" and we asked if we could change his mind he said "no". One player said "I don't like to game if I can't make my own die rolls" Gm said "Tough". So then we walked.

I understand where you come from taht you may not like PF2 because of the mathmatical underpinnings may be changing, and allow for more vairiability in results than you feel comfortable with. That is fine.

However that does not make it a bad option, nor make it feel "not like pathfinder". The tight combat balance you say you use sounda lot more like what I felt D&D 4E was trying for.

And the DMs fun didn't matter to any of you, clearly. Is the DM is only there to make sure YOU have a good time?

He was wanting he story to run exactly the way he wanted to, players be danged. It was a railroad, with no player agency. If that is how he wanted GM, he needed to find players that would have fun with that kind of game. As players, we wouldn't have fun where we never rolled any dice, and all results were hidden from us. It was better to part ways than have that kind of conflict.

So we did worry about his fun - it was obvious that he would not have fun based on what we wanted out of the game, and we wouldn't have fun playing in the game he watned to run. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

If I write and plan an encounter to last a whole night because it's an epic boss fight and the law of averages happens to work against me that night and the fight is over in less than 20 minutes and I have nothing else prepared for that night is the game better?

That happened to me in rolemaster once ( a super swingy system). We got to the BBEG and I open ended twice on the attack roll, then rolled perfectly on a crit, and killed the beasty in 1 round. The GM looked shocked. The players (and characters) rejoiced at the great moment, and the bard in the group wrote a lay aobut the monk taking out the demon with a perfectly placed kick. Fun was had by all.

The next session, the GM who was unhappy about us beating the monster in 1 round (even though all the players had fun) said he would roll all the player rolls behind his screen. We all walked away at that point, because it was obvious his pacing/story was more important than our fun.

Do you really want to DM a game where you can't reliably know how much damage the fighter can do so you give the enemy 60 HP so he lasts more than one turn only for the fighter to do something like 12 damage overall?

Absolutely.

I want that kind of wild range of success in the game. Just like real life - an olympian may break a world record one day, and trip the next. The undertainty (as a player, and as a GM) makes the game more enjoyable for me.

It has been stated that one of the boons of the higher rank Acrobatic Proficiency is high/long jumps. I'm hoping we can reach John Carter levels.

And by mid level rather than high. 8th or so. :)

I have always views XP/leveling as training. The fact taht you get it in the dungeon instantly in 3.P doesn't change that. As a metaphor, you take a karate class, and you have a kick you have been practicing, but it's still slower than normal as you work out the kinks. Then when sparring it feels natural, and all of sudden you pop the kick out perfectly. You have that moment of insight that lets the training be used in a realistic situation. You happened to level up that morning.

Also from 1st edition D&D I always viewed martials as Conan, Aragorn, Sir Madolloran, even going to Herecles or Cu Chulain. They coudl do things that were near superhuman or superhuman to begin with, due to skill, training, bloodline, etc etc. So the fact people can "all of a sudden" fall from orbit, never bothered me, it was part and parcel of the genre.

The abiltiy to train to become able to fall from orbit isn't in the training, it's in the character, and genre. The training is an excuse for it showing up.

As a general rule, I never liked low fantasy or swords and sorcery, I liked my fantasty Epic, so that fit right in (and shapes) how I view my fantasy RPGs. Not surprisingly I detest level 1-2, and really feel like the game comes alive around 5th level.

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Garet Jax of the books is an awesome representation of the fighter class... Under level 9.

I can't think of a level 20 fighter in Western Fantasy unless we include mythology or comic books.

Can you come up with anyone equivalent to a D&D/PF level 20 wizard or cleric in Western Fantasy without going to the same sources?

The gang at the end of the Mallorean I could easily see at 20th. The Old Lords in the Covenant Series.

Building the characters may be similar, but i think playing them will be an entirely different glass of water.

In Hero the change from 3rd Champions to 4th Hero and 5th Hero to 6E Hero had some major changes to how a character was built. The play at the table still felt very very similar.

I expect that will be the case with PF2. Characters will be build diferently, and the action economy may change and we call BAB a skill, but the actual flow of the game will still very much Pathfinder.

Forgive me if it has already been aswered before (I haven't read all 548 previous post :P )

From what I've read will class progression look like how talent tree worked in D20 Modern, as when you pick a class, at a given level, you have the option to pick a talent (or feat in the case of PF2e) and as you level, you have the option to specialize more into that talent tree, or pick a new one to diversify your options? The same could be said for ancestry, skill and general feats?

Thank you for the callout on D20M. I knew the PF2 system sounded familiar. I loved the flexibility of that system.

Planpanther wrote:

This is all moot because a blog post will be dropping any day telling us about VMC from unchained being the new way of PF2.

I sure hope not. I love Unchained, but some of the options in it were...less than stellar. VMC is very much one of those.

I'm thinking that one of the univesal archtypes will be a "dual class" archtype, where you pick two classes, and it tells you when you get either class abilitie, and has the class, skill, ancestory and general feat sctructure normal, and you can just use your class skills from either class. Maybe not the only class, but I can easily see that as an option.

WatersLethe wrote:

I've never had a problem with 1 level dips. What's the issue? It's often just another point of customization, and only in certain cases does it add a disproportionate amount of power.

Well, with the caveat that I don't care what other people do at their tables-- it makes a mockery of the very concept of a class system.

I'm of the camp that saw a level in a class as nothing more than a discreet packet of skills and abilities that a character had rather than something defitional (in general). The class / level thing was for balance, but wasn't seen as formal descreet things in the actual fiction of a game world (people don't say I'm a fighter, I'm a cleric - except as a description of profession).

And with no training, his mod should not be higher than the career mountaineer even for those things.

I think comparing the two versions boil down to this:

In PF the mod/roll tells you both what you can try and how well you do it.
In PF2 the mod only tells you how well you attempted something, the profencieny level tells you what you can do. So someone untrained with a high mod isn't actually "better" than a low mod.

Take a character who is a "homeowner" class at high level - but untrained in electrician - he can wire in a lamp, or a doorbell, know how not to overload his eletrical outlets.

A lower level character that is a master at electrician can wire in a new house, build branches, add circuit breakers and do many things the high level "homeowner" cannot do. His mod may be somewhat lower, but he is better at the skill of electrician.

10th level homeowner might have a +10 from level, +1 from ability, and -2 for untrained. +9.
The 5th level eletrician +5 from level, +2 from profeincey and +2 from abiltiy (as it is a focus, higher abiilty score there). for +9.

So 5 levels difference, same mod, and the master can do many many more things than the untrained guy can do.

All adventurers are really good everythings. Complete polymaths.

If true, that is completely awesome and a welcome change.